Case 11: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Imelda R.

Marcos, Jose Conrado Benitez and Gilbert C. Dulay

G.R. No. 153304-05

February 7, 2012

Facts:
2 criminal information filed by People before Sandiganbayan charging the
respondents with the crime of malversation of public funds Art 217 (4) RPC which
arose from the transactions that the respondents participated in their official
capacities as Minister and Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Human Settlements
(MHS) under the MHS Kabisig Program. The prosecutions chief evidence was based
on the lone testimony of COA Auditor Iluminada Cortez and the documentary
evidence used in the audit examination of the subject funds. Separate motions to
dismiss by way of demurrers to evidence wre filed by Zagala and the respondents,
the prosecution filed a manifestation stating that it was not opposing the demurrers
to evidence. The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and acquitted respondents
in their assailed decision dated March 22, 2002 considering the unreliability and
incompleteness of the audit report.

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in granting the
demurrers to evidence of the respondents.
Held:
No. In this case, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the
Sandiganbayan when it exercised restraint and did not require the presentation of
additional evidence, given the clear weakness of the case at that point. We note
that under the obtaining circumstances, the petitioner failed to show what and how
additional available evidence could have helped and the paramount interest of
justice sought to be achieved. It does not appear that pieces of evidence had been
omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or that these pieces of evidence are
intended to correct evidence previously offered. More importantly, it does not
appear that these contemplated additional pieces of evidence (which the special
prosecutor allegedly should have presented) were ever present and available. For
Instance, at no point in the records did the petitioner unequivocally state that it
could present the three UL officers, Cueto, Jiao and Sison. The petitioner also failed
to demonstrate its possession of or access to these documents (such as the final
audit report) to support the prosecutions charges the proof that the State had been
deprived of due process due to the special prosecutors alleged inaction.